And another thing…

NO SIRREE, not in any way are Cameron and Osborne assuming victory before a single vote has been cast, no way… 

HIGHER tax rates, so received wisdom argues, don’t actually result in a higher tax take. High earners find ways to avoid paying it, either through hiring clever accountants or by fleeing the country altogether.

The problem with this argument, of course, is, who’s to say what is the optimum level for a higher tax rate? Why is 40 per cent seen as the ideal level? Why not 35? Or 30? Why not scrap the higher rate altogether? After all, if higher tax rates result in no extra revenue (or, as some argue, result in actually lowering revenue) then making everyone pay the basic income tax level on all income will result in a windfall for the Treasury…

But if higher rates actually do result in less tax take, why is George Osborne refusing to commit to scrapping the 50p rate if he takes office? Surely, if he actually believed that revenue to the Treasury will be lowered by taxing high earners more, then he could save the country money by scrapping it.

Or does George not actually believe that? I think we should be told.

I REALLY hope The Whip is wrong in predicting that Labour strategists are planning to resort to the failed “Tory toff” tactics during the general election.

It didn’t work in Crewe and it won’t work in a nationwide contest. And I’m not against it just because it’s ineffective: even if I thought people would respond positively, I would still be against it.

But for most of my 25 years in the Labour Party I’ve argued for the notion that class warfare is irrelevant. And I’ve argued that Labour can only win by being the party of aspiration. Slagging people off for being wealthy and for having privileged backgrounds would be utterly self-defeating — literally and figuratively. 

Cameron and Osborne would be bad for Britain, not because they used to be members of the Bullingdon Club or are former public schoolboys or whatever, but because their political philosophy and policies will damage and divide our nation.

And by focussing on class, we would effectively be conceding that we don’t have anything to say about Tory policies.

PERSONALLY, I think such displays of gleeful triumphalism from opposition politicians are unwise, whatever the polls may say. Still…

And a happy St Patrick’s Day from me, too.

7 May, 2010 - A Tory's worst nightmare

AFTER three general election defeats in a row, it’s now virtually impossible to find a Tory who is not super-smug about their chances at the next one.

Despite Labour majorities of 180, 160 and 66, most Tories now believe that voting on the day of the election, whenever it comes, will be a mere formality. The election’s in the bag; it’s simply now a matter of agreeing dates in the calendar for when “David” can move into No. 10.

And who said the Tories were arrogant, eh? After four election defeats, the Labour Party, from the leader to the armchair activist, dreaded another defeat and resolved to stop at nothing in its efforts to win next time round. 

The Conservative Party seems to have no such self doubt.

But I want those of you who subscribe to such views to do a little mental exercise, just for the sake of entertainment: imagine what would happen to the Tory Party if Labour wins next time.

Set aside your disbelief for the moment (someone give Johnny a slap on the back will you, before he chokes to death with that coughing). I’m not asking you to believe that the great British public have got the right to change their minds about how they intend to vote. But it might make for an interesting intellectual exercise.

If, on Friday 7 May 2010, we awake to pictures of a smiling GB and Sarah going into No. 10, and more sober images of “David” leaving his family home, refusing to speak to reporters until he’s had a chance to “take stock” of the result and discuss them with “senior Shadow Cabinet colleagues”… what happens next?

If it was a narrow Labour majority – say, one or two seats – would the party allow “David” to continue? What if it was a more healthy majority, set to sustain GB’s new government through an entire parliamentary term?

It’s an accepted fact that there are many on the right wing of the Conservative Party who are biting their tongues while “David” holds out a hope of a return to power for their party. They don’t like his perceived liberal namby-pambyism (though they shouldn’t worry – it is no more than perception). Would they keep their counsel for another four or five years?

And if he did decide to step aside, who would take over? Osborne? Gove? Hague? Davis? What would be the new leader’s strategy? Would he lead to the left or the right? 

For a politcal anorak like me, these are fascinating, if (at the moment) hypothetical, questions.

Go on, indulge me.

THOSE (and I include myself in this) who didn’t believe the Tories had really changed under David Cameron can think again.

Because the Shadow Chancellor has announced that the next Conservative government will control the price of your home. Yes, you read that right: the Conservatives don’t believe that house prices should be subject to the market any more, but should be controlled by central government, much like tractor production in the Soviet Union, I guess.

Now, before you jump to your keyboard and start flexing your fingers in preparation for a staunch defence of… well, in defence of anything and everything Dave and George come up with, just consider this: A Conservative government would have no faith in the market or in the property-owning democracy so successfully promoted by Margaret Thatcher.

I’m not even criticising the idea itself (although I have my doubts about whether it would actually work): maybe governments should intervene to prevent property bubbles developing. But a Tory government? Manipulating the market, managing the market, intervening in the market to stop your house becoming too valuable? It actually does beggar belief.

So if you’ve even got this far before you started writing your comment (you know who I’m talking about), just ask yourself: if the Labour Party proposed such a policy, would you welcome it? Would you say, “About time politicians started deciding how much I should be able to sell my house for – long overdue”?

I’m genuinely looking forward to John Redwood’s analysis of this particular initiative.

I TOOK part in a panel discussion with Steve Richards of The Independent and Jonathan Isaby of Conservative Home on Friday at the Commonwealth Club near Embankment.

A question from the audience about George Osborne elicited a surprisingly generous response from Richards, whose political analysis I’ve always been impressed by. But I was nevertheless taken aback by his enthusiasm for Osborne, who he described in glowing terms as the pre-eminent political talent of his generation. A future leader of his party? I asked him. Yes. he replied, unequivocally.

Afterwards I reflected on the reality that if talent and ability automatically led to political success, we would have seen Denis Healey and Michael Heseltine become prime minister. Luck and judgment play as big a part as ability in any political career.

Which brings me back to Osborne.

Iain Dale did a very good job last night in exposing the vacuity of The Sunday Times’ latest attempted demolition of Osborne. Nevertheless, at a time when GO, justifiably or not, is under some pressure, he has decided to launch a very controversial attack on the government’s economic policy by predicting a run on the pound.

Ken Clarke says there’s no convention that says the Shadow Chancellor cannot speculate about the strength of the currency. And Iain pointed out that the threads on Conservative Home which The Sunday Times prayed in aid of its case against Osborne actually featured no substantive criticism. Yet as I’ve pointed out before, at the very least, Tory activists are less impressed with his performance now than they were a month ago.

So is now the right time for GO to making himself vulnerable to the inevitable accusation that he’s talking Sterling down?

Ability, skill, luck, judgment: GO may well have the first two in sufficient quantity, but without the last two, he’s a goner.

GEORGE Osborne’s star is waning, according to Conservative Home’s survey of Tory Party activists:

Our latest survey of over 1,600 rank-and-file members found that 49% were satisfied with Mr Osborne but 47% were dissatisfied; a net positive rating of just 2%. That is a huge shift since last month when George Osborne enjoyed a net positive rating of +70%.

Undoubtedly some of the recent fall is short-term fallout from He-Said-She-Said-No-I-Didn’t-YahBooSucks-Gate. But there seem to be deeper, more considered reservations among the blue rinsers. He certainly hasn’t quite cut it against Alistair Darling, at a time when most commentators expected him to capitalise on the government’s perceived weaknesses.

There’s certainly no reason for Cameron to keep Osborne in the Shadow Chancellor’s role if he doesn’t want to. A move sideways to Shadow Home Secretary would allow ‘Dave’ to demote Dominic Grieve, the “accidental Shadow Home Secretary” as well as promote the far more effective Michael Gove into the Shadow Chancellor’s job.

You read it here first, folks.

REGRETTABLY, I can’t help but agree with Iain Dale that what will inevitably be entitled “Osbornegate” by this time tomorrow is a non-story.

While watching fabulously rich people and their friends fall out over whether or not the caviar was passed to the right or the left is fascinating and entertaining, I find it hard to believe that anything at all of any importance to British politics occurred during the Champagne-fuelled dinners aboard various yachts and in Corfu tavernas. 

I mean, would “Boy” George  really have risked his entire career for the sake of a £50,000 bung? If so, then he has far less political judgment than anyone has given him credit for.

JUST watched Osborne on BBC iPlayer. His interview starts at 20 minutes in. My “informant” must have watched a different interview – GO’s performance was hardly statesmanlike but it certainly wasn’t his worst, and Ms Wark didn’t seem remotely amused.

That’ll teach me to blog about stuff I haven’t seen for myself.